This court dismissed the appeal as infructuous because the respondent Finance Institution had taken possession of the property, rendering the matter disposed at the lower forum.
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous. The appellant is at liberty to approach this Tribunal if aggrieved by the DRT's order on the pending prayer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No. 80/2022
Arising out of S.A. No. 201/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)
Smt. Mithilesh Vs
Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.
27.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice BrijeshSethi
Present: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Ld. counsel for he appellant
Mr. Vishal Khattar, Ld. counsel for respondent
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the respondent FI states that the possession of the property in question has been taken over by the FI on 07.06.2022 and, therefore, this appeal has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the appellant, however, states that prayer no.4 is still pending for disposal. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that the same prayer is pending before the DRT also.
Heard. Let the DRT first decide the said prayer of the appellant and the appellant is at liberty to approach this Tribunal if she is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the Tribunal.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed as infurcutous.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
Mithilesh
Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
